Well, darn, just when Al Gore and his cronies were about to cash in even more on the whole "global warming" scam, an enterprising hacker blows the whistle on some of the High Priests of the Church of Climate Change.

For those of you either A) living in a cave in Afghanistan, or B) getting your news exclusively from John Stewart or MSNBC, the details are covered rather well at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html

Now, finding out that a bunch of neo-socialists have been lying is not exactly news, especially to anyone who has done any due diligence in researching the whole "climate change" issue. But it does underscore the lengths that the radical Left in America will go to achieve their real goal: the destruction of the American economic system.

Like everything else the Left does, "climate change" legislation has nothing to do with it's stated purpose. The so-called "Cap and Trade" bill is not about imaginary "carbon footprints" - its actual goal is the suppression of the American economy. Since the beginning of the "progressive" movement in the early 20th Century, the Left has seen every ill on the planet as being caused by American prosperity. Thus, every new "problem" discovered (or invented) by the Left always has as its "solution" the reduction in America's standard of living.

There is no better example of this "blame-America-for-everything" mindset than the fact that just a few decades ago, when the boogey-man was "global cooling," the cause was immediately laid at the feet of America's economic activity. Yet when the same people who claimed we were headed for another ice age, suddenly reversed their predictions to "global warming" - well, whaddya know, the problem is still...America's economic activity.

The truth is, the American Left, now even more open about their socialist, if not outright communist, worldview, hate America's success, power, and most of all, its prosperity. They don't think it's "fair" that Americans have such a magnificent standard of living when so many in the rest of the world do not - the fact that these Third World hell holes are invariably run under the very socialist policies they endorse eludes them.

This latest revelation simply underscores that fact that these neo-Communists are willing to say or do anything, including lying, deceiving, and manipulating science, in order to bring about a "new world order" (their words), where America's exceptional prosperity is replaced by equally shared misery.

The headline in the Denver Post (Saturday, Nov. 21, 2009) seemed straightforward enough:

"Denver Police arrest 32 in series of downtown assaults"

And the fact that the offenders nabbed in the sweep were all young, black males, most of whom were affiliated with major street gangs, came as no surprise to anyone who lives in Denver, or any major city in America for that matter. Young black males account for a hugely lop-sided proportion of violent street crime - the Bureau of Justice statistics have documented this for decades.

But when the details of this particular operation, and its genesis, were revealed, a more disturbing aspect emerged. These young thugs, who viciously beat and robbed dozens of people, had specifically targeted their victims because of their race. Their victims were almost exclusively white, with a few Latinos thrown in.

As Denver Police Chief Gerry Whitman describes it, starting in July, "Groups of four or five black men would approach a victim late at night or early in the morning and attempt to spark a fight" usually with racial insults.

The Post further reported that "Victims were punched in the head, resulting in head injuries, broken noses and shattered eye sockets, according to Whitman" who also said "it might be the largest racially motivated criminal group ever in Denver."

All well and good, but the most significant (and disturbing) line in the article states that "In September, police asked the public for help in solving 14 downtown muggings but chose not to alert the public to the racial nature of the crimes" supposedly out of "concern that the undercover effort would be compromised."

So, warning potential victims that they may be targeted because they happen to be white would "compromise" the investigation? What nonsense. What we have here is once again, public safety being trumped by concerns for political correctness. And that is no exaggeration - more than a dozen additional attacks occurred that might have been prevented, had police been up front about the racial nature of the attacks.

Shades of Ft. Hood.

What's next? Referring to the "Rollin' 60s Crips" and the "Black Gangster Disciples" (the two gangs behind the attacks) as "African-American Social Clubs?"

Let's face it, if these attacks had been the work of some white "skin-heads" who had attacked blacks or Latinos (or heaven forbid, Muslims) the outcry would be deafening, and unending.

Chris Mathews would be having a stroke.

Al Sharpton would be vomiting his usual race-baiting rhetoric.

The "Lame-Stream Media" talking heads would be chattering hysterically about the "wave of racism" inundating the country.

Even President Obama would likely sally forth with a somber (and Teleprompter-coached) statement on America's "persistent racism" - why, with a couple of tweaks, he could simply recycle his "Skip Gates" speech.

But don't hold your breath waiting for this case to become a wall-to-wall 24/7 story on CNN. Just as the "LSM" buried the story in Kansas City where a young white couple was savagely raped and tortured for days, then burned alive by four black men and a black woman, today's press hates to report black-on-white crime (in spite of the fact that it is 3 times more likely than white-on-black crime).

After all, actually reporting the truth might throw a monkey wrench into their relentless "diversity" crusade - and in their distorted world, that would be worse than the crimes themselves.

If you had any doubt about how deeply the American Left fears Sarah Palin, you need only look at Newsweek's recent cover photo of her. With a whole cabinet full of perfectly reasonable pictures they could have used, the Newsweek editors dug through the files to find one of the former Governor...in shorts, originally taken for Runner's World magazine. Then there is the caption right below the photo, taken straight out of the Democrat's "search and destroy" playbook:

"She's Bad for the GOP - and for Everyone Else, Too."

Unfortunately, this is the kind of objective, neutral "journalism" we have come to expect from the likes of Newseek, so no one is fooled for a minute. The cover is obviously (and intentionally) an insulting and demeaning hit-piece, designed to marginalize Governor Palin while masquerading as "news" coverage. They hate her, and they will abandon all pretense of objectivity in order to destroy her.

But the Newsweek cover is also part and parcel a deeper kind of kind of nasty, sexist animus we have seen against all women in politics, regardless of their political affiliation - when the media decided that Obama was their "Chosen One" they had no problem making obliquely sexist attacks on Hillary Clintion. That Sarah Palin is a staunch conservative simply elicits even greater bile from the liberal elitists who inhabit most of mainstream journalism.

Yet in an incredibly feeble attempt to defend their decision, Newsweek's Editor, Jon Meacham, actually had the nerve to say: "We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard."

A "gender neutral" standard, he says? I laughed so hard I almost spilled coffee into my keyboard. Not even Sarah Palin's detractors will believe that one. And these people wonder why Newsweek, the New York Times, and others with the same left-wing bias are spiraling toward bankruptcy.

More to the point, Sarah Palin isn't even running for office yet. Can you imagine the kind of sleazy, vicious attacks that will come her way should she actually declare herself a candidate for any elected office, let alone the Presidency? And whether or not one likes Sarah Palin is beside the point - this kind of blatant abuse of a woman by a magazine that attempts to portray itself as a "news" organization is simply beyond the pale.

Women, all women, deserve better.

Is there no end to the insanity of Obama and the Democrats? First they take a mild economic slowdown and turn it into a full-blown recession by taking over banks, using taxpayer money to bail out two of the three major U.S. auto companies, and establishing a Soviet style "pay czar" to decide what salaries private businesses are "allowed" to pay - all the while racking up almost a TRILLION dollars (that's a 1 followed by 12 zeros) of debt on the nation's credit card.

As a result, unemployment has skyrocketed to 10.2% - bad enough, but that's just the standard, or "U-3" number - the real situation is much worse. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the number of 'discouraged workers' rose to 2.4 million. And 1.6 million of those have simply given up looking for a job and have not actively looked for work in more than 4 weeks. As such they are not counted in the "normal" (i.e. the U-3) unemployment rate.

According to the BLS, the more accurate unemployment rate (known as U-6, and which includes all non-working adults) is now at a staggering 17.5% - that's DOUBLE the U-6 rate of even the worst years of the Bush presidency (just after 9/11) and getting dangerously close to the rates during the Great Depression.

The Democrats in the House then pass a monster "Healthcare" bill that not only amounts to a complete government takeover of the American health care system, it also includes payoffs to their cronies at Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and big unions like the corrupt SEIU. As the ugly details hidden within this 2000 plus page bill (the Constitution took only 6 pages) are being uncovered, more and more voters, especially Independents, are jumping the Democrat ship.

Meanwhile, waiting in the wings is the mother of all job-killers, the "Cap and Trade" bill. This monstrosity will do more to destroy the American economy and strangle personal freedoms than any legislative initiative in history. And for what purpose? To combat mythical "global warming" - in spite of a landslide of scientific data showing that the earth has been cooling for at least the last 11 years.

"Cap and Trade" is a monumental fraud that will only succeed in enriching the likes of Al Gore and General Electric, while shackling the United States economy - to the benefit of China, India, and the developing nations (who will be given "special considerations" in setting energy use standards). When the real impact of this sell-out of American sovereignty to the "world community" is understood by the average voter, it will be yet more bad news for Democrats.

Just as the radical Musim jihadists hate America and wish to destroy us physically, Obama and his cadre of radical socialists hate traditional America, and wish to destroy us economically. And just as the Islamic suicide bombers are happy to die in the course of their mission, today's Marxist Democrats seem equally willing to "die" politically, as long as they succeed in turning America into a socialist "Mecca."

With all of their previous blunders already causing Democrats to plummet in the polls nationwide (more than a 20 point swing in some states), how else could you possibly explain Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder deciding to bring the masterminds of the 9/11 attacks to New York City...for a civilian criminal trial?

This latest insanity has not only outraged Republicans and Independents - it even has Democrats aghast. It certainly does make one wonder if there is anything resembling "strategic planning" in the Obama administration. Or, as a good friend  of mine, a hard-nosed attorney and former prosecutor, would often ask a client who had just committed an outrageous (and clearly self-destructive) act of stupidity:

"Are you out of your [expletive] mind? What the hell were you thinking!?!"

Indeed, Mr. President, what are you thinking?

In an astonishing example of Political Correctness gone overboard, the St. Paul school district committee has voted to ban the word "citizen" from all committee titles:

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_13759812?nclick_check=1

Apparently the board members (all but one voted to support the absurd measure) don't want to "offend" non-citizens. Now, I don't really care if some illegal alien feels "excluded" by the word citizen, but who, exactly, complained in the first place? Keith Hardy, a former chair of the group, says he can't even remember the word ever coming up as an issue.

When asked who had a problem with the language, board member Anne Carroll first claimed that she had "heard from a number of people" - but when pressed, she had to admit that the issue had "been on my list of issues for a very long time" and that the "complaint" came from just one person. (Anyone want to take bets that the "one person" was an activist for illegal aliens?) 

This is, of course, yet one more case of a left-wing public official inventing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. But no matter, as board member Anne Carrol puts it, "I think it is our obligation to make sure our language is as welcoming as possible."

You've got to kidding. The word "citizen" is now somehow a pejorative?

It's bad enough that we have elected officials who think that illegal aliens should be provided with everything from schooling to medical care, all at the expense of the (citizen) taxpayers. But to believe that the word "citizen" is now somehow "offensive" is simply beyond the pale - Ms. Carrol contends it is "very dated language" and needs to be changed because it is "doing the right thing."

No, Ms. Carroll, what needs to be changed is the embarrassing catering to political correctness that has become a hallmark of too many public officials. And if you and the rest of your cohorts who voted for this insulting resolution really want to do the "right thing," you should all have the integrity to resign. And if not, then I would hope that the good CITIZENS of St. Paul take it upon themselves to do the right thing, and vote every one of you lunatics out of office.

Chicago's Mayor Richard M. Daley has outdone himself. I've commented before on his bizarre comments regarding guns and gun control:

http://havegunwillvote.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/27/is_chicagos_mayor_daley_mentally_disturbed.thtml

But for the good Mayor to assert that the reason for the Muslim terrorist attack on Ft. Hood was that "Americans love guns too much" is not merely insulting to the memory of the dead - it is bordering on insanity.

Because Mr. Daley presides over a city with among the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation (including a complete ban on handguns since the early 1980s), yet Chicago continues to be one of the most violent cities in America (under 600 murders is considered a good year). Chicago's gangs are so numerous and so violent (not to mention, well-armed) that they have been subjects of the History Channel series "Gangland." Seems they never got the "no-guns" memo from the Mayor.

Statements like those of Mayor Daley, when added to the equally inane utterances of the likes of Illinois Senator Richard Durban, give a picture of a Democratic Party that is so far out of touch with normal Americans as to be almost laughable - if their policies weren't killing people. But gun control does kill. Not the thugs and the gang-bangers - they kill each other. Gun control kills the innocent, as it did in the Ft. Hood massacre, by forcing the law-abiding to become helpless victims.

Because whether it is a single mother walking home from the bus stop in Chicago, unable to protect herself thanks to Mayor Daley's hatred of guns, or the soldiers at Ft. Hood, forced to conform to an idiotic "no-guns" policy, the end result is always the same: the innocents pay with their lives.

Last night, on the eve of Veteran's Day, I had the privilege of spending time with some of the brightest, most courageous, and yet genuinely humble people I have ever encountered - U.S. military veterans and their families.

I was attending the Minnesota Military Appreciation Fund dinner, an annual event established to raise money to provide various grants to Minnesota military members recently back from Iraq and Afghanistan, especially those who have been wounded. And while the grants are not extravagant by any means, their real purpose is to simply let these modern day warriors know that we appreciate what they, and their families, have sacrificed for all of us.

The speakers included soldiers who had received unimaginably horrible wounds, from massive burns to a bullet through the head. Yet these young men not only survived, they continued to exhibit a remarkable willingness to get back to their units as soon as they would be allowed to do so.

Perhaps one of the most moving presentations was by a young mother, the wife of a twice deployed serviceman. With quiet grace and barely disguised emotion, she explained in vivid detail the emotional pain that the families back home experience.

This year's keynote speaker was Minnesota's own best-selling author, Vince Flynn, who not only graciously waived his normal speaker's fee, he donated $10,000 to the MMAF. His respect and affection for those in uniform was readily apparent - his appreciation for our military, and others on the front lines in the war on terrorism, is well known to anyone who has read his immensely popular novels.

I myself was seated next to a remarkable young soldier. He was soft-spoken, polite, and respectful - it was almost embarrassing to have him call me "sir" so many times. He was also in such apparently superb physical condition, that it was only after we talked about his experiences in "the sand box" that I learned he was still recovering from vicious wounds.

He described one incident, in which a rifle bullet had hit him in the hip, then tore through his intestines, before exiting on the opposite side of his torso. Yet this quietly confident young man talked almost lightheartedly about the incident, displaying the nonchalance of someone far beyond his 28 years.

By the end of the evening, I understood more than ever the enormous contribution these selfless individuals make to the people of this country. It also reminded me that the same sense of duty that has been revered throughout history lives on in these amazing young warriors and their families today.

So, I thought it appropriate to re-post a piece (see below) that pays homage to those timeless values, and in doing so on this Veteran's Day, say to every one of you who wears the uniform of the American Armed Forces:

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

300

Honor. Respect. Courage. No, I wasn't watching the Democratic Convention. After forcing myself to endure days of political types endlessly demanding that government provide cradle-to-grave socialism, I finally shut the convention off and popped the movie "300" in my DVD player.

Ah, sweet relief. This admittedly stylized retelling of the 300 Spartan soldiers who held off a massively stronger Persian army is downright inspiring. Here were men who exemplify the virtues that all of us, in our heart of hearts, wish we had.

And not just the men. We see women with far more backbone than the wimpy metro-sexuals of today. One of the memorable lines in the film was delivered by the wife of Sparta's King Leonides. She reminded a political type that "Freedom is never free. It comes with a cost, the highest cost...blood."

Ironically, some of the best lines in the movie were not the work of some screenwriter - but documented by historical eyewitnesses as the actual words spoken. One example is this exchange: the Persian emissary warned that unless they surrendered "our arrows will blot out the sun." A Spartan warrior coldly replied, "then we will fight in the shade." And they did.

It is difficult to imagine a typical elected official today expressing such bravado, especially in the face of certain death. True, there are a few examples of such men in Congress - not surprisingly they are usually those who have experienced the reality of war up close and personal. But they are still exceptions.

Where are the modern day equivalents of the heroic Spartans? Do they even exist? Oh, they most certainly do. And they are not that hard to find. Just watch any news video of American soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq. Or anywhere in the world.

As a result of my work, I have had the privilege of meeting many of the young men and women who make up today's armed forces, and I can tell you, they are more than willing to sacrifice anything, and everything, to keep us safe in a dangerous world.

So, go ahead and watch the Democrats pandering to every professional victim group on the planet, promising "free" healthcare, "free" education, and government mandated light bulbs. Then watch the Republicans attempt to convince us to vote for them because they "aren't as bad as the other guys."

But please do take a moment to remind yourself why it is that you and I are free to elect such idiots in the first place. Why we are free to act like fools ourselves. Free to sit back in our couches and yell at the TV. Free to sit in a coffee shop, whining about the bad Wi-Fi reception, or the price of gas.

You and I are only able to do these things because American men and women stand guard, day and night, in heat and cold, rain or shine. Ready to spit in the eye of those who would take our freedoms away.

Ready to "fight in the shade."

The 300 live.

The above comment was made by a self-described "liberal" just the other day. Now, that an American citizen would utter such a statement at all should give every freedom loving person in the country chills. But he is not alone. Where once you would have heard such talk only in university classrooms, America's socialists are "coming out of the closet." Perhaps emboldened by the election of  "one of their own" to the American Presidency, they are suddenly popping up everywhere.

And they are not just cheering Obama from the sidelines - they are influencing policy. From his cabinet to his growing army of unelected "czars," a list of Obama's closest advisers reads like a who's-who of the American Communist Party - virtually all of them committed to turning the United States into a socialist state.

But that pesky old Constitution keeps getting in their way.

Obama himself has stated on the record that he finds the Constitution "flawed" because it does not allow for the "redistribution of wealth" and makes it more difficult to implement what he calls "social justice" programs. For those unfamiliar with the term, "social justice" is barely disguised liberal code for "using the force of government to confiscate the income of people who are smarter, harder working, and more ambitious than their fellow countrymen, and then 'redistribute' it to the stupid, the lazy, and the indolent" - in other words, taking your hard-earned money and giving it to people who, in simpler and more honest times, were called bums.

The American Left has always lamented the fact that the United States is not a "pure" democracy - they seem to forget the record of other such "pure democracies" around the world. Venezuela, currently under the thumb of dictator Hugo Chavez, is such a "democracy" - Chavez was, after all, duly elected by "the popular vote."

Iran, too, is a "pure" democracy - it is also a 10th century Muslim oligarchy that executes young girls for holding hands with a boy, and is headed up by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, one of the original architects of the 1980 hostage crisis, but hey, why quibble over such minor details. After all, Ahmadinejad is a leader who was chosen by the people in a "democratic" election, wasn't he?

But America is not a democracy - it is a Constitutional, Democratic, Republic - and thank God it is. Because if we ever dismantle the structure of the richest, most successful nation in the history of the world, we risk becoming very much like a Venezuela, or, if the Left has their way, an American version of Iran - except that instead of the fanatical Muslim mullahs pulling the strings behind the scenes, we will have fanatical atheist socialists performing the same function - ensuring ideological "purity" among the masses (see: "Fairness Doctrine").

If you do not understand how crucial the Constitution is to your liberty, then you either never read it, or you need to read it again, carefully. Especially the Preamble. The Declaration of Independence is worth rereading every now and then, too. The American system of government, with its three branches and well thought out checks and balances, prevents the very kind of "mob rule" that is the hallmark of those "pure" democracies.

Even the concept of the electoral college performs a critical function - preventing the country from being ruled by only one or two states. As it is, the huge populations of New York and California exert an undue influence on national elections, not to mention policy. Without the electoral college, a socialist candidate could easily lose in EVERY STATE except California or New York, yet wind up as President.

But wouldn't all candidates have an equal chance of winning? No way. Because with the extreme concentration of Democrat voters in just those two "coast" states, along with the lop-sided Democrat majorities in the major cities (due to the increasing number of social program recipients, as well as the army of government employees who also depend on a check from the state), using the so-called popular vote alone would virtually guarantee that socialists (otherwise known as Democrats) would have lifetime employment.

Why do you think that it is the Left in America that wants so desperately to eliminate the Electoral College and replace it with a simple popular vote?

So, be thankful that we have the system we have, and be wary of those who attempt to seduce you into scrapping it, especially when they do so with promises of government goodies like "free" healthcare - the purpose of getting more and more Americans dependent on the government is simply to guarantee that a majority of the public votes to "keep the checks coming."  But such promises of "free stuff" always come with a (very expensive) price tag, not only in dollars, but in terms of the loss of your precious freedoms.

Let the whitewash begin. You knew it the moment you heard the name of the Fort Hood killer: Nidal Malik Hasan. Gee, now what do we suppose we're going to find out about his, ahem, religious affiliation? And, as more and more becomes known about this mass murderer, are any of us going to be surprised by his political views?

This is going to be a tough one for the mainstream press to ignore, yet they can't even summon the courage to call the attacker what he is - a terrorist. Unfortunately for them, there is a clear history of the assailant's radical anti-Iraq war views beginning to emerge, not to mention the videos of him stopping in at the local convenience store for coffee, dressed in traditional Muslim garb. Kind of makes it difficult for the press to hide his Muslim religion. And oh, how they would desperately like to avoid bringing the killer's religion into the discussion.

We will instead hear news types talk about being "puzzled" over his motivation, despite beginning his attack by shouting "Alah u Akbar" ("God is Great") the preferred battle cry of suicide bombers (and the last words of the 9/11 hijackers just before they hit the World Trade Center). These politically correct media nitwits act as if Nidal Malik Hasan were no different than Seung-Hui Cho, the student who shot up Virginia Tech in 2007.

Even worse, some in the media are even tying to evoke sympathy for Hasan, portraying him as a victim of "harassment" who just needs to be "understood" and who "didn't get the [psychological] help that he needed." Got it - it's the Army's fault he went on a rampage. Get ready for "sensitivity training" for soldiers who deal with Muslim recruits.

But just imagine if the Ft. Hood shooter had been a garden variety soldier who just happened to attend Christian church a couple of times a year - aaah, then the flood gates would have opened. There would be "investigations" into Evangelical churches, attempts to connect the shooter with some "white-supremacist" or "right-wing militia" group. And, no doubt, comparisons with the media's holy grail of "home grown" terrorists, Timothy McVeigh - they do love him so.

Now, this double standard in the media is nothing new. Look at how the they handled the recent case of Faleh Hassan Almaleki, the Muslim father who ran down his on daughter in yet another "honor killing" - she finally died in the hospital just days ago. The press did everything possible to hide the primary motivation for his act: her violation, in his twisted mind, of Sharia law. Check out the initial stories - only now does the phrase "honor killing" even appear, and only in a few reports from independent news organizations.

And remember the "D.C. Sniper" rampage? John Alan Muhammad and his young apprentice killed 13 people, yet no one in the press dared make the obvious link between his (newly adopted) Muslim faith and his violent, dare I say, anti-American, shooting spree. Nope, he was just a "disturbed" individual.

But why is the press so adamant about denying the reality of Muslim extremism? After all, it isn't exactly news that most of the world's terrorism is being perpetrated in the name of Islam. The press, however, would like you to believe that "most Muslims" are nice, law-abiding people who would never think of engaging in the kind of slaughter we saw at Ft. Hood.

And that is probably true, at least technically. Indeed, most Muslims, especially those who are American born and bred, are not likely to be terrorists. But as one astute reader pointed out, "most Germans didn't participate in the Holocaust either" - they just looked the other way. So the larger question is, while they may not actually engage in terrorist acts themselves, how many American Muslims, just like Nidal Malik Hasan, secretly support the actions of the jihadists? Since surveys of Muslims indicate that more than 30% of them feel suicide bombings are "justified in the defense of Islam" the number today who privately condone what Hasan did is likely to be disturbingly high.

So I just can't help wondering: if they were to overhear a conversation in which other Muslims were clearly discussing an upcoming terrorist attack on their fellow Americans, what percentage of these so-called "good Muslims" would actually pick up the phone and call the FBI?

Or are they, as Nidal Malik Hasan declared, "Muslims first, and Americans second."

Yes, I do wonder....

As predicted, following the Republican's razor-thin loss of New York's 23rd Congressional District, Newt Gingrich made it clear that he is still clinging to his losing strategy of running so-called "moderate" candidates. He also somewhat arrogantly reminded us, several times, that, "as someone who engineered the first Republican majority since 1928" he was the all-seeing, all knowing expert in such matters - suggesting rather clearly that we mere peasants should bow to his superior intellect and political skills.
 
True, he did preface his statements with a brief admission that he was remiss in not realizing what a bad choice the party had made in nominating liberal-Democrat-in-Republican-clothing Dede Scozzafava. But he then went immediately back into his now tiresome speech about how, in order to achieve a majority, Republicans need to offer candidates who can appeal to "moderates."

But if Newt's theory is true, then how exactly did Rarak Obama, the most radical left-wing presidential candidate in history, get elected? After all, you cannot find a single policy on which Obama's position is even close to being "moderate" or "centrist."

The answer isn't that complicated. Obama won because he simply waged a carefully crafted campaign that hid his extremist views in bland and unspecific promises about "hope" and "change" - while portraying himself as a centrist moderate, not becoming one. Even today, he peppers his sales pitch for the most extreme socialism in American history with downright Reaganesque language about "competition" and "choice."

Newt, like too many Republicans today, misses two key points. First, most Americans are not nearly as "moderate" as he thinks. Most people who refer to themselves as "moderate" or "centrist" do so simply because it makes them feel like "independent thinkers" rather than ideologues, but at the end of the day, they are far more conservative than even they realize. Recent events have demonstrated this rather clearly - from the outcry over amnesty for illegals, to the rising opposition to socialized medicine, Americans are showing their true (conservative) colors.

Second, for decades now, Republican elites have thought the way to win is to adopt policy positions that more closely resemble those of their opponents, otherwise know as "moving to the center." But the real secret to success is to adopt their tactics, not their policies. Look how Democrats push their agenda. They kick. They claw. They bite. In other words, they FIGHT.  And more importantly, just as in the classic Judo principle, Democrats use our own words against us. Even Newt Gingrich admitted this - but then went straight back into defending the strategy of running Republicans who are little more than "Democrat Light" candidates.

So, instead of using dull facts and "me-too" approaches that have about as much appeal as cold oatmeal, Republicans should adopt the language and tactics that actually appeal to the broader populace - in other words, they they need to do a better job of marketing. You already have a superior product in conservatism - don't replace it with a Yugo - learn how to sell it.

But no matter what, Republicans must return to their conservativie roots, and start offering candidates who represent a clear alternative to the liberal Democrats. Otherwise, we will see increasing losses, as voters, seeing less and less difference between the parties, go for the "real" Democrat over the pseudo-Republican.

Or worse, more and more disaffected voters will look to 3rd party candidates like Doug Hoffman, which will ultimately just split the center to moderate vote, and virtually guarantee Democrat victories, just as it did in the 23rd district race.

Wise up, Newt...

Now that Democrats and their ever more socialist policies have been soundly repudiated in Tuesday's elections, you can bet that the results will be misinterpreted, by both Democrats and Republicans. Democrat talking heads (other wise known as "TV Journalists") are already engaged in almost laughable denial, calling the Dems thrashing "an anomaly" and "not all that important in the big scheme of things."

Republicans especially are likely to completely misconstrue what happened when it comes to the one high profile contest they failed to win - New York's 23rd Congressional seat. In that race, virtual unknown Doug Hoffman came within a hairs breadth of defeating a well financed Democrat. Unfortunately, the Republican elites who are responsible for Hoffman's loss will likely use his defeat to reinforce (and escalate) their losing strategy of running "Democrat Light" candidates.

But the truth is that Hoffman likely would have won, had he not been forced to run as a 3rd party candidate by the RNC - who then also spent more than $1 million to run ads against him! No, had this been a typical two-way race, there is little doubt that Doug Hoffman would now be in the U.S. Congress. Because it was the RNC hacks who selected a socialist Democrat as the Republican candidate, a woman who, when she saw she had no chance of winning, suspended her campaign, but then had the gall to endorse the Democrat!

More broadly, Tuesday's elections were a clear victory for conservatives, not Republicans. Remember that a large number of people who voted for Democrats (including Obama) in the last election, this time supported the candidates who clearly voiced opposition to the soaring taxes and reckless spending that are strangling the economy. That they happened to elect Republicans is beside the point - we should instead credit the common sense of the American people, who are more and more waking up to the destructive agenda that today's radical socialist Democrats are pushing.

Yet I have not the slightest doubt that the RNC elites will continue with their current losing strategy, which basically consists of whining that "we're not as bad as those guys." Instead of exposing the "global warming" insanity for the fraud that it is, they will sign on to the economy-killing "Cap and Tax" bill (but just "not a much as those guys"), cave in on energy independence by not pushing for drilling in Alaska, the Gulf Coast, and other known sources of energy, while going along with silly "wind farms" and other such "green" nonsense.

Instead of proposing real reforms in health care (eliminating state mandates to allow genuine competition, passing serious malpractice reform, tax breaks for individuals, etc.) they will go along with some form of Democrat "Healthcare Reform" but "just not as much."

Instead of pushing for serious education reform (vouchers, tax breaks, and other measures that will give actual choice to parents) they will support every new education spending bill (i.e. - another big check to the teacher's unions), but just "not as much as those guys."

And on and on it will go.

Until Republicans get the message that simply running as "Democrat Light" is not going to cut it.

No sooner had pseudo-Republican Dede Scozzafava, candidate for New York's 23rd Congressional District, announced suspension of her clearly doomed campaign, than she turned around and gave the finger to her misguided Republican cheerleaders, Newt Gingrich and Michael Steele. After withdrawing from the three-way race, did Ms. Scozzafava tell her supporters to vote for the other Republican in the race, Doug Hoffman (who, after being snubbed by the Republican elites, was forced to run under the Conservative Party banner)? Nope. She endorsed...the Democrat.

Her betrayal comes as no surprise to those of us familiar with the mentality of so-called RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). These putative Republicans have inevitably turned out to be little more than reeds in the wind, going along with whatever policy they see as beneficial to their own re-election, regardless of the affect on their constituents, not to mention the damage they do to the Republican Party.

You'd think the recent defection of Arlen Specter would have been sufficient to persuade the Republican Party leadership that sacrificing basic conservative principles in the hope of gaining a bigger share of those supposed "moderates" in the electorate is a deal with the Devil. But no, rather than backing a real conservative like Doug Hoffman, the once reliably conservative Newt Gingrich embarrassingly defended Ms. Scozzafava's selection by the Party's back-room boys - in spite of the fact that she is so out of step on fiscal matters that the Democrat in the race accused her of being the "tax and spend" candidate!

Even Michael Steele, to whom I gave the benefit of the doubt as a possible fresh conservative voice, lost all credibility when, in an attempt to justify the Party's pick, he actually repeated the tired old canard about not being able to win "with only 38% of the vote." For those unfamiliar with this comment, he is referring to the mistaken idea that appealing to the "conservative base" will automatically result in losing the "mushy middle" to Democrats.

But that is a false premise. The most recent polls show that a solid 40% of voters declare themselves to be "conservative" while only 20% of voters characterize themselves as "liberal" - with 36% claiming to be "moderates." Now, I know more than a few liberals who oppose Democrats on gun rights, taxes, and other fiscal polices, but just for the sake of argument, let's take that 20% figure at face value, and presume they will all vote Democrat. Ditto the conservatives - very few of those 40% are going to go for Democrats, even less so in the wake of the radical policies that Obama and the Congress are pursuing.

Which leaves us with those 36% of the electorate who fall in the "moderate" category - the ones that clueless Republicans seem to think will only respond to a Republican candidate who "moves closer to the center." But why do they continue to believe that, in spite of being proved wrong, time and again?

After all, even if we make the calculation that this group is roughly split between those leaning slightly liberal and those leaning slightly conservative, you end up with at least 18% of moderates supporting the conservative. And in case you've forgotten your basic math, coupled with the 40% solid conservative vote that works out to a total of 58% for the conservative candidate - a landslide figure in a presidential race (which is just about exactly what Reagan got - running as a clearly defined conservative).

But wait, it gets better. Given that TWICE AS MANY Americans are willing to call themselves conservative as liberal, would it not make sense to presume that there are likely just a few more conservative-leaning moderates than liberal ones?  In that case, you are looking at even stronger majorities in support of a Republican, even a conservative one. History has shown that while liberals do well in high-density inner city venues (enclaves of welfare recipients and government workers), almost everywhere else, real conservatives fare much better. That is because America is, and always has been, a fundamentally center-right country. And recent polls show the marked shift back to these conservative roots.

Ever wonder how Reagan got such a big share of that supposedly moderate vote? It wasn't his personality. It certainly wasn't that his policies moved "to the center" - on the contrary, from building up the military to the point that it forced the collapse of the Soviet Union, to facing down the unions when he fired the recalcitrant Air Traffic Controllers, Reagan stuck to solid conservative principles. And yet moderates gave him landslide victories...twice.

Because here's the secret that seems to elude Michael Steele and the rest of the Republican "leadership" - most "moderates" don't vote on policy. Any reliable survey of them indicates that they often don't even know much about what's going on politically (ask a moderate friend who George Soros is and you'll likely get a blank stare). No, moderates, lacking much in the way of solid understanding of policy issues, but fearing anything too radical, invariably vote for the candidate who seems to have a clear message, delivered with passion, and most importantly, with conviction.

Obama, even though he said almost nothing substantive, seemed to believe what he said. John McCain, on the other hand, had trouble standing for anything (he went along with Obama on everything from "global warming" nonsense to giving in on immigration). As a result, given a choice between two candidates who didn't seem all that different policy-wise, they picked the one who seemed the most committed.

Regardless of the outcome of the 23rd District race, the message being delivered to the obstinate Republican leaders who still cling to the "moderate model" is clear: take a stand or take the bus home. Because if Republicans persist in trying to be little more than "Democrat Light" they will be consigning the GOP to permanent minority status. After all, if there is no discernible difference between the parties, who needs Republicans?

Especially when there are now genuine conservatives willing to proudly run under that banner.

If I hear the phony "both sides do it" line one more time, I'm going to vomit. Time and again it is those on the American Left, not conservatives, who use the most hateful, violent rhetoric as a political tool. And time and again it is the same out of control, radical liberal loonies who end up eventually committing acts of genuine violence.

During the '60s and '70s it was the mobs of so-called anti-war protesters who frequently "expressed themselves" by vandalizing and destroying property. I lived in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic Convention, when these unwashed scum practically destroyed the city.

There were (and still are) the various eco-terrorist groups like the Earth Liberation Front, who have perpetrated arson on homes and vehicles, and jeopardized the lives of loggers by placing steel spikes in trees - all in the name of "saving the planet" you see.

We had the anti-business, anti-free enterprise, anti-just-about-everything WTO protesters, who ran wild in the streets of Seattle and other cities, smashing store-front windows and overturning cars. These Che-Guevera worshiping, nihilistic anarchists are uniformly from the left (the far left) side of the political spectrum.

And let's not forget the busloads of filthy professional trouble makers (transportation provided by ACORN?) who came to Minnesota in 2008 with their bags of urine and feces, intent on disrupting the Republican Convention - only a well disciplined phalanx of local police and Homeland Security kept them from succeeding.

Just days ago we were treated to a vile, sexually bitter old man, Gore Vidal, saying on national television that when he saw George Bush on the TV, he wanted to "jump right through the screen and kill him" then, for the benefit of those who might not fully comprehend what he meant, he added that it was "one murder I regret not committing."

Not surprisingly, Mr. Vidal's murderous sentiment was then wholeheartedly seconded by his host, the unutterably imbecilic left-wing whack-job, Joy Behar, who further lamented that it was now "too late" to kill President Bush.

Can you even begin to imagine the brouhaha that would have exploded across the airways had some conservative writer made similar comments regarding President Obama? Why, there would be the rending of garments, gnashing of teeth - Nancy Pelosi would likely summon up fake tears, abhorring the "hateful" rhetoric.

Yet when liberals express the most unconcealed hatred - even in language that it is impossible to "take out of context" - there is no outcry. No demands for an apology. Not even a raised eyebrow. There is no "hate-speech" in liberal la-la land.

But words are one thing. Far more ominous is the news that earlier this month, someone, obviously angry with CNN business and financial commentator Lou Dobbs, decided to make their dissatisfaction known by...shooting at his house...while his wife was home:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570296,00.html?test=latestnews

Now, rest assured that the left-leaning media will do everything in their power to suggest that the perpetrator was somehow connected to some "right-wing" cause or group. But given the fact that Lou Dobbs is perhaps best known for his opposition to unfettered illegal immigration, it seems rather obvious who will likely be found with the smoking gun.

But if this was supposed to be some kind of warning to the likes of Mr. Dobbs, I would caution those behind this gutless act to remember one thing:

Our side has a whole lot more guns than yours...

...and we won't miss.
 

After almost single-handedly destroying the U.S. economy, President Obama's dithering on sending more troops to Afghanistan shows how this man-child pretending to be an adult is not only unfit to be America's domestic leader, he is even less qualified to be its commander-in-chief. By showing uncertainty and hesitancy, he has merely emboldened Al-Qaeda - they have stepped up attacks, not only in Afghanistan, but all over the world, including Pakistan, our putative ally.

Obama claims to be taking a "thoughtful" approach, saying in a speech last week that he "would not put troops in harm's way" without serious consideration. But American soldiers are already in harm's way, and Obama's own choice for commander has asked for more troops. Obama's indecisiveness has resulted in more Americans being killed last month than any time in the last eight years.

The ancient Romans had a saying, "Si Vis Pacem Parabellum" (roughly, "If you seek peace, you must be prepared for War") - they recognized the reality that peace, real peace, can only be achieved when your enemies are certain of your willingness to use force to protect your interests. Unfortunately, Obama is sending the message to our enemies that he is neither ready, nor willing, to use force.

Now, while having a pacifist American president may seem just dandy to the socialist Europeans or Marxist dictators of South America (not to mention the American Left, who see Obama's sitting on his hands as yet more "proof" of his "awesome" intellect), it does little to deter terrorists around the world. From Kim Jung-Il to Jugo Chavez to Iran's mullahs, the avowed enemies of America continue to thumb their noses at the man who is supposed to be the "leader of the Free World" - practically daring him to react.

The unfortunate reality is that, whether a leader of a rogue nation or a bully on the playground, those who seek domination over others are deterred by one thing, and one thing only - fear of retaliation. And today, it is obvious that no one fears Barak Obama - the world's violent thugs see him as little more than a frightened schoolboy, wringing his hands over what to do next in dealing with grown-up problems.

In less than a year, Obama has already shown his utter lack of understanding of fundamental economics - his profligate spending of money we don't have, combined with an unprecedented expansion of government interference in the private sector, has sent the country into a dangerous tailspin.  Now we see that Obama is no more adept at navigating the world of international relations than he is at dealing with domestic issues.

But the most disturbing thing about this situation is that Obama's woefully inadequate experience, along with his lack of backbone, is putting every American, regardless of political affiliation, at greater risk than ever before in our history...both economically, and physically.